Analysis of dynamic changes of the bone substitutes size parameters during the reconstruction of alveolar ridge under exposure to different influencing factors

Authors

  • V. V. Rusyn Uzhhorod National University, Ukraine
  • A. T. Keniuk Uzhhorod National University, Ukraine
  • M. Y. Goncharuk-Khomyn Uzhhorod National University, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26641/1997-9665.2018.1.42-50

Keywords:

bone substitutes, dimensional changes, augmentation of bone ridge

Abstract

Abstract. Background. Bone substitutes size changes depend on the influence of a number of determinants, including the origin of the graft and the technique used for the reconstruction of the residual crest. However, question of objective evaluation of such changes remains not fully resolved in dental practice. Objective. Analysis of bone substitutes dynamic size changes under exposure to different influencing determinants based on preliminary scientific and clinical studies. Methods. The Google Scholar Request Form (http://scholar.google.com) was used to search relevant publication by the Advanced Search feature. During the search, such specific types of operators as "+" were used to provide general named titles of the search subject ("bone substitute", "bone graft", "volume loss", "dimension reduction"). The grouping of numerical data that represented dimensional reduction of various bone substitutes was conducted using the Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office 2013), cells of which were filled with bibliographic data of the publication, the total number of analyzed cases of augmentation, the level of bone material reduction (in numerical representation) and data about specifics of conducted surgical manipulation, applied software, the actual analytical approach, statistical analysis and reliability of the results. Results. During the analysis of the previous studies results, it was found that the size stability of bone substitutes during the reconstruction of the alveolar ridge depends on the origin and form of the material. In the case of using a mixture of materials with different origin, reduction is associated with the percentage of structural components, techniques of their use, the application of the guided bone regeneration principles and the term of the dental implant installation in the region of augmentation. Conclusion. Interpretations of the data obtained during the analysis of bone graft size changes depends on the chosen method of research: in the analyzed publications approaches volumetric reduction at the sites of augmentation differed according to the principles of evaluation (verification of proper volumetric changes, volume calculation based on the parameters of width, length and height, isolation the area of interest by treshholding or manual segmentation) and to the use of adapted software.

References

  1. Sanz M, Vignoletti F. Key aspects on the use of bone substitutes for bone regeneration of edentulous ridges. Dental Materials. 2015;31(6):640-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.03.005.
  2. Monje A, Monje F, Suarez F, González-García R, Villanueva-Alcojol L, Moreno C, Wang HL. Vertical and Horizontal Ridge Augmentation of a Severely Resorbed Ridge in the Anterior Maxilla. Clinical Advances in Periodontics. 2013;3(4):230-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1902/cap.2012.120068.
  3. Misch CE. Available bone and dental im-plant treatment plans. Dental Implant Prosthetics-E-Book; 2014. 315 p.
  4. Sanz-Sanchez I, Ortiz-Vigon A, Sanz-Martin I, Figuero E, Sanz M. Effectiveness of lateral bone augmentation on the alveolar crest dimension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of dental research. 2015;94(9):128S-142S. DOI: 10.1177/0022034515594780.
  5. Anitua E, Murias-Freijo A, Alkhraisat MH, Orive G. Implant-guided vertical bone augmentation around extra-short implants for the management of severe bone atrophy. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2015;41(5):563-9. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00131.
  6. Meijndert CM, Raghoebar GM, Meijndert L, Stellingsma K, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Single im-plants in the aesthetic region preceded by local ridge augmentation; a 10-year randomized controlled trial. Clinical oral implants research. 2017;28(4):388-95. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12811.
  7. Troeltzsch M, Troeltzsch M, Kauffmann P, Gruber R, Brockmeyer P, Moser N, Schliephake H. Clinical efficacy of grafting materials in alveolar ridge augmentation: a systematic review. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2016;44(10):1618-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.028.
  8. Donos N, Kostopoulos L, Tonetti M, Kar-ring T. Long‐term stability of autogenous bone grafts following combined application with guided bone regeneration. Clinical oral implants research. 2005;16(2):133-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01104.x
  9. Bullens PH, Schreuder BH, de Waal Malef-ijt MC, Veth RP, Buma P, Verdonschot N. The sta-bility of impacted morsellized bone grafts in a metal cage under dynamic loaded conditions: an in vitro reconstruction of a segmental diaphyseal bone de-fect. Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery. 2009;129(5):575-81. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-009-0821-0.
  10. Iizuka T, Smolka W, Hallermann W, Mer-icske‐Stern R. Extensive augmentation of the al-veolar ridge using autogenous calvarial split bone grafts for dental rehabilitation. Clinical oral implants research. 2004;15(5):607-15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01043.x
  11. Ohe JY, Kim GT, Lee JW, Al Nawas B, Jung J, Kwon YD. Volume stability of hydroxyapatite and β‐tricalcium phosphate biphasic bone graft material in maxillary sinus floor elevation: a radio-graphic study using 3D cone beam computed tomography. Clinical oral implants research. 2016;27(3):348-53. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12551.
  12. Simonpieri A, Del Corso M, Vervelle A, Jimbo R, Inchingolo F, Sammartino G, Dohan Eh-renfest D. Current knowledge and perspectives for the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in oral and maxillofacial surgery part 2: Bone graft, implant and reconstructive sur-gery. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology. 2012;13(7):1231-56. PMID: 21740370
  13. Lee HG, Kim YD. Volumetric stability of autogenous bone graft with mandibular body bone: cone-beam computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstruction analysis. Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Sur-geons. 2015;41(5):232-9. DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2015.41.5.232.
  14. Cosso MG, Brito RB, Piattelli A, Shibli JA, Zenóbio EG. Volumetric dimensional changes of autogenous bone and the mixture of hydroxyapa-tite and autogenous bone graft in humans maxillary sinus augmentation. A multislice tomographic study. Clinical oral implants research. 2014;25(11):1251-6. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12261.
  15. Schmitt C, Karasholi T, Lutz R, Wiltfang J, Neukam FW, Schlegel KA. Long‐term changes in graft height after maxillary sinus augmentation, onlay bone grafting, and combination of both tech-niques: a long‐term retrospective cohort study. Clinical oral implants research. 2014;25(2):38-46. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12045.
  16. Jensen T, Schou S, Svendsen PA, Forman JL, Gundersen HJG, Terheyden H, Holmstrup P. Volumetric changes of the graft after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio‐Oss and autoge-nous bone in different ratios: a radiographic study in minipigs. Clinical oral implants research. 2012;23(8):902-10. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02245.x.
  17. Mordenfeld A, Aludden H, Starch‐Jensen T. Lateral ridge augmentation with two different ratios of deproteinized bovine bone and autogenous bone: A 2‐year follow‐up of a randomized and controlled trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Re-lated Research. 2017;19(5):884-94. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12512.
  18. Dasmah A, Thor A, Ekestubbe A, Sennerby L, Rasmusson L. Particulate vs. block bone grafts: three-dimensional changes in graft volume after reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla, a 2-year radiographic follow-up. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2012;40(8):654-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.10.032.
  19. Mordenfeld A, Johansson CB, Albrektsson T, Hallman M. A randomized and controlled clinical trial of two different compositions of deproteinized bovine bone and autogenous bone used for lateral ridge augmentation. Clinical oral implants research. 2014;25(3):310-20. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12143.
  20. Barone A, Toti P, Menchini-Fabris GB, Fe-lice P, Marchionni S, Covani U. Early volumetric changes after vertical augmentation of the atrophic posterior mandible with interpositional block graft versus onlay bone graft: A retrospective radiological study. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2017;45(9):1438-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.01.018.
  21. Spin‐Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Coletti FL, Pereira LA, Marcantonio E, Wenzel A. Remodeling of cortical and corticocancellous fresh‐frozen al-logeneic block bone grafts–a radiographic and his-tomorphometric comparison to autologous bone grafts. Clinical oral implants research. 2015;26(7):747-52. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12343.
  22. Deluiz D, Oliveira LS, Pires FR, Tinoco EMB. Time Dependent Changes in Fresh Frozen Bone Block Grafts: Tomographic, Histologic, and Histomorphometric Findings. Clinical implant den-tistry and related research. 2015;17(2):296-306. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12108.
  23. Mazzocco F, Lops D, Gobbato L, Lolato A, Romeo E, Del Fabbro M. Three-dimensional volume change of grafted bone in the maxillary si-nus. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2014;29(1):174-8. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3236.
  24. Eser C, Gencel E, Gokdogan M, Kesiktas E, Yavuz M. Comparison of autologous and heterol-ogous bone graft stability effects for filling maxil-lary bone gap after Le Fort I osteotomy. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2015; 24(2):341-8. DOI: 10.17219/acem/40450.

Published

2018-03-30

How to Cite

Rusyn, V. V., Keniuk, A. T., & Goncharuk-Khomyn, M. Y. (2018). Analysis of dynamic changes of the bone substitutes size parameters during the reconstruction of alveolar ridge under exposure to different influencing factors. Морфологія / Morphologia / Morfologìâ, 12(1), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.26641/1997-9665.2018.1.42-50

Issue

Section

Статті